The referral follows a challenge brought by Reus Research LLC and centers on how ingredient quantities and equivalence claims were presented across labeling and digital channels.
Participation questions raised in NAD process
The case appears to have proceeded without a clear indication of the advertiser’s meaningful participation, which can affect both the process and the outcome.
“This is an unusual decision in that it seems thinbi may not have meaningfully participated, but NAD still issued a decision on the merits,” Jennifer Adams, Partner at Amin Wasserman Gurnani, told NutraIngredients.
“If thinbi did not actually participate, it’s not surprising they did not provide an advertiser’s statement, resulting in their referral,” she added.
In NAD proceedings, advertisers are typically expected to either agree to comply with recommendations or appeal adverse findings. A lack of response can result in referral to regulators.
Claim substantiation remains central to review
At the core of the challenge were claims showing a total of “8,457MG” of active ingredients per capsule, along with messaging that certain botanical extracts were “equivalent to” larger quantities of raw materials.
“Consumers are likely to interpret the ‘8,457MG’ statement on the front label and in related advertising as conveying that the product contains 8,457 mg [milligrams] of active dietary ingredients per capsule,” NAD stated in its case decision.
“The information contained in the Supplement Facts Panel (SFP) cannot effectively qualify an express claim when it contradicts that claim,” NAD added.
NAD also reviewed how the claim appeared in social media contexts.
“Consumers could reasonably interpret the prominently displayed ‘8,457MG’ statement as representing an amount of NAD+,” NAD stated. According to the case record, the product contains 150 mg of NAD+ per capsule.
Referral strategy mirrors wider regulatory context
Adams said the referral may also be viewed in light of the evolving interplay of enforcement. “The current FTC climate and priorities, including a noted lack of action on NAD referrals, may be shifting NAD challenge dynamics,” she said.
“Companies now consider this during their participation strategy, and NAD is also adapting its approach by making referrals to other regulators, such as state Attorneys General, as well as to certain advertising platforms,” Adams explained.
NAD indicated that its referral in this case includes relevant state attorneys general and the platforms on which the advertising appeared.
The longer-term effects of these developments remain uncertain, particularly as NAD appears to be broadening its approach to non-compliance. “It will be some time before seeing the implications of NAD’s new referral tactics,” Adams added.
NutraIngredients reached out to Iron Rock LLC as well as Reus Research LLC, but did not receive a response to comment as of this publication.
